Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA17055 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:57:34 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458FB@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:55:27 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I won't pretend to have understood most of your recent postings, but here
goes with a few comments.
First, there's a lot of Jung in what you say, but isn't Jung about as
credible as Freud when it comes to social analysis? After all his notion of
archetypes stems from his belief in a collective unconscious- what's your
position on that?
Second, the A/~A distinction sound remarkably like Wittgenstein's approach
to logic and the formulation of knowledge, the distinction he makes is P/~P.
Where do you stand on Wittgenstein's notion that meaning of words rest only
in negation?
Third, I don't like (:-)) this notion that meaning comes back to specific
states of emotion, of which there are a finite number, and a finite number
of associations between them- if that's what you're saying.
Overall, and apologies for this because you've clearly gone to some length
to elucidate your position, I'm not sure what the overall point of what
you've written is - in terms of memetics that is. Are you saying something
about the innate structure of things that spread between human minds, or
about why we are susceptible to memetic engineering, or...?
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chris Lofting
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2000 8:13 am
> To: Memetics
> Subject: FW: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb
>
> continued...
>
> As my recent email of the Darwin/Lamarck dichotomy showed, by applying the
> basic eight states to the elements of the dichotomy ('positive' end to
> Darwin, 'negative' end to Lamarck) I can describe the approaches of each
> point of view not because I 'know' Darwin or Lamarck but because I know
> the
> fundamentals of their determination of meaning.
>
> Thus Darwin is more 'wholes and parts' and so object oriented (initial
> emphasis on opposition, purity, archetypal etc) whereas Lamarck is more
> 'statics and dynamics' and so more relationships oriented (cooperation of
> between species etc). If allowed to develop you would see entanglements
> and
> eventually the emerging continuum that is the 'truth' behind the
> dichotomisations.
>
> One thing that rCBF studies have shown is that in processing information,
> once a theme is set, one 'side' of the brain sets the overall 'colour' or
> 'tone' of the analysis such that a left bias, an objects bias, will favour
> particular perspectives that are different to the relationships
> perspective.
> Thus all relational perspectives that spring up later are seen with
> 'object'
> eyes etc. These perspectives, when written down, RETAIN these biases such
> that the biases are passed on in education.
>
> This setting of a fundamental determines all harmonics that are of 'value'
> such that the characteristics of what is discovered in the analysis are
> predictable since the METHOD has properties that are 'seen' in the
> information, there or not.
>
> Over time feedback from model to actual can help to 'refine' our
> perspectives but this can take centuries unless you have an understanding
> of
> the METHOD we use to process information, what is BEHIND the words.
>
> These distinctions, the four Bs (add positive/negative or expand/contract
> etc etc giving 8) are 'in here' across the species. They are tied to each
> other but can also serve as the 'base context' for mapping 'out there' as
> well as 'in here'. Thus there are as many points of view as there are
> emotional states since the emotional states 'colour' our perspectives.
> However, IN GENERAL, all of these states are to some degree reducable to
> one
> of the 4 Bs (or to at least a simple composite or set of composites).
>
> In the analysis of Astrology we find two fundamental dichotomies being
> used
> (and so only at level 2 (four types) rather than 3 (eight types)). These
> dichotomies are:
>
> AIR/EARTH (Fundamental)
> FIRE/WATER (Derived)
>
> >From these have emerged all of the 'meanings' in Astrology and in general
> these meanings map to:
>
> expansive blending - AIR
> contractive blending - EARTH
>
> expansive bounding - FIRE
> contractive bounding - WATER
>
> These 'meanings' are then refined through associations with various
> internal
> and external (!) elements to make up the set of meanings in Astrology.
> (See
> my essay "The Logic of the Esoteric" for a more detailed mapping).
>
> EVERYTIME you make a distinction the template of emotional states
> opens-up.
> It is this template that is generally invariant and allows us to find
> meanings and express them in an infinite number of ways.
>
> Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) is founded on the making of dichotomies
> and as such is guaranteed to elicit a sense of 'value' regardless of any
> 'facts'. For example, the particularisation of sensory data into Visual vs
> Others is the formation of a 1:many dichotomy and that process alone will
> 'create' a template waiting to be filled out.
>
> ALL objects (disciplines, 'universe of discourse', whatever..) have the
> template as a source of meanings. Experiences, expectations, predictions
> etc, favour the development of a particular path through the template
> (e.g.
> a bind emphasis or a bond emphasis etc).
>
> Words act to particularise, they act to point to a specific meaning but
> that
> relationship is NOT 1:1, it is more many:1 where MANY words point to the
> one
> feeling. This allows for the use of analogy across disciplines as well as
> the creation of metaphors.
>
> One metaphor in particular is symbolically very useful - The I Ching (Book
> of Changes) in that whoever wrote it did a good job in capturing the
> subtle
> patterns of emotion 'behind' the words. Thus over the centuries people
> have
> seen so much 'in' the I Ching, not because it is there but because what
> they
> have seen is the PATTERNS OF EMOTION tied to the template. Thus people
> 'see'
> mathematics, physics, complexity/chaos etc 'in' the I Ching but it is the
> ties to dichotomisations that creates these 'resonances', all of these
> discplines/subjects are founded on the use of recursive dichotomisations
> and
> that method has with it a set of meanings, apply the method to ANYTHING
> and
> when comparing things you will pick up on the properties of the method
> encoded in the words.
>
> The disadvantage of the method at the 'base' level is of course its
> generality -- we cannot communicate information when limited to describing
> 'objects' and 'relationships', we need to differentiate one object from
> the
> next and it is with language and the process of particularisation that we
> do
> this, WADE is different to CHRIS at the particular level, but not at the
> species level and at this latter level is where we get general 'meaning'.
>
> One of the other problems is that of taking a metaphor literally. I think
> this is due to the underlying patterns of emotion that are identical to
> the
> feelings we get from mathematics/science compared to Astrology/Tarot etc
> and
> so this can elicit a sense of 'value' that is equivalent! Feedback from
> the
> environment goes to support the 'value' and in Astrology there IS positive
> feedback in that as a TYPOLOGY it works but the original associations to
> planets as metaphors have been taken literally and so we have 'problems';
> thus Moon in Cancer in reality is not the same as Moon in Cancer 'in
> here'.
>
> What these sorts of typologies manifest are a lack in precision such that
> you use whatever you can to describe something, thus these sorts of
> systems
> when used as predictions ASSUME there is meaning present, they cannot deal
> with 'randomness' since they are sourced in harmonics analysis, the
> general,
> and as such, no matter how particular they can get, will always have an
> approximation about them (as well as dismissing a false prediction by
> suggesting 'external' forces were at hand etc. This gets more into the
> prediction/prophecy dichotomy where prediction is 'pointed' and so
> definite
> and I can prove it wrong but prophecy allows for relational dynamics and
> so
> can never be wrong, after all the goalposts are dynamic as well!)
>
> I hope this perhaps too intense series of emails has aided the reader
> (Wade
> in particular) in getting an idea of what I am talking about re meaning
> and
> how ANY discipline that uses dichotomisations as a root will find the same
> set of meanings as other disciplines but will label them, create its own
> lexicon, and in doing so seem to create the impression that the meanings
> discovered are unique. I have not come across any disciplines that do not
> have dichotomies as roots but then that is to be expected based on
> analysis
> of how our brain seems to work.
>
> Overall there IS an 'in here' and an 'out there' which forms a dichotomy
> such that the method 'in here' seems to 'work' when applied to 'out
> there'.
> We will always be able to find meaning in anything once we pass our
> analysis
> beyond the initial dichotomy. By this I mean that once we think something
> is
> 'of value' or could be 'of value' we shift into dichotomous analysis and
> that part of our brain assumes there is meaning as a fundamental!
>
> It is feedback that acts to refine our sense of value beyond the genetic
> basics of the template such that at the initial level we can learn to
> reject
> something as 'meaningless'. An infant knows little about 'NOT', it has to
> learn.
>
> Many religions (Taoism, Zen, even some christian fundamentalists) favour
> not
> going past the original dichotomy, live in the moment; reflection,
> feedback
> processing, takes you 'away' from reality; remove you from the experience
> of
> the 'absolute', the 'one'. The emphasis is sticking to making simple,
> local
> distinctions. This favours an object oriented mode of existence however
> to
> do this requires some learning and so some feedback processing and that
> includes exposure to 'other' perspectives and this allows for comparisons
> of
> perspectives, but rather than 'allow' for having to map all of these
> expressions we have adapted to map patterns BEHIND the expressions.
>
> Mathematics, the Sciences, the Occult etc are all particular expressions
> of
> the SAME general patterns. Understand these generals and you can refine
> your
> understanding of the particulars and this includes seeing them as
> metaphors
> of varying degrees. ALL of these disciplines are 'self-contained' and the
> more 'precise' ones maintain a sense of 'purity' and so try to develop in
> 'asexual/adrogyne' manners and so keep 'pure'. However they ALL share a
> common lexicon 'behind' the ones they create and this is in the form of
> patterns of emotion tied to object/relationship distinctions.
>
> best,
>
> Chris.
> ------------------
> Chris Lofting
> websites:
> http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 12:58:21 BST